There is no need to refute such trivialities, in my opinion. While I might engage in a discussion predicated on the statement you present, it would only be for entertainment purposes. I don't believe gods exist because the supposed evidence of their existence is feeble, ambiguous, or downright fraudulent. The existence of the Christian god can be considered refutable on a logical basis, which is why most astute Christian debaters prefer to defend a more abstract concept of deity.

Christian soldiers bleating this sort of battle-cry are merely looking to score points on some imaginary scoreboard. They suffer under the delusion that they hold an unassailable position, and for the most part, indulging them only serves to validate that delusion.

There is no need to refute such trivialities, in my opinion. While I might engage in a discussion predicated on the statement you present, it would only be for entertainment purposes. I don't believe gods exist because the supposed evidence of their existence is feeble, ambiguous, or downright fraudulent. The existence of the Christian god can be considered refutable on a logical basis, which is why most astute Christian debaters prefer to defend a more abstract concept of deity.

Christian soldiers bleating this sort of battle-cry are merely looking to score points on some imaginary scoreboard. They suffer under the delusion that they hold an unassailable position, and for the most part, indulging them only serves to validate that delusion.

There is no need to refute such trivialities, in my opinion. While I might engage in a discussion predicated on the statement you present, it would only be for entertainment purposes. I don't believe gods exist because the supposed evidence of their existence is feeble, ambiguous, or downright fraudulent. The existence of the Christian god can be considered refutable on a logical basis, which is why most astute Christian debaters prefer to defend a more abstract concept of deity.

Christian soldiers bleating this sort of battle-cry are merely looking to score points on some imaginary scoreboard. They suffer under the delusion that they hold an unassailable position, and for the most part, indulging them only serves to validate that delusion.

Can this subject come under the purview of science?

I don't think so; gods by their purported nature are not subject to any direct scientific inquiry.

There is no need to refute such trivialities, in my opinion. While I might engage in a discussion predicated on the statement you present, it would only be for entertainment purposes. I don't believe gods exist because the supposed evidence of their existence is feeble, ambiguous, or downright fraudulent. The existence of the Christian god can be considered refutable on a logical basis, which is why most astute Christian debaters prefer to defend a more abstract concept of deity.

Christian soldiers bleating this sort of battle-cry are merely looking to score points on some imaginary scoreboard. They suffer under the delusion that they hold an unassailable position, and for the most part, indulging them only serves to validate that delusion.

Despite the adage that holds the impossibility of proving a negative, it is possible in some cases. However, the concept of gods is so diffuse that proving their non-existence is in my opinion a fool's errand.

I agree that the challenge to prove that gods don't exist is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. But the sort of person who would issue that challenge would also never let logical fallacies get in the way of their march to triumph. On the other hand, if a person claims to know that gods do not exist, they take on their own burden of proof. Personally I don't make that claim. I don't believe that gods exist, and I mentioned the main reason for my lack of belief above. I think that it is reasonable to doubt the existence of gods, and for me that in itself is enough. If any of the gods that religions tell us about truly existed, the evidence for these beings would be unequivocal and no reasonable person would question their existence.

Then there is the fact that in the history of our species, thousands of gods have been worshipped. The attributes of this multitude of gods are contradictory--religions simply can't all be telling us about the same beings. The more likely explanation is that gods are a product of human imagination and desires, which vary by location and era; the gods reflect that variability.

One can entertain the thought that one particular god or one particular pantheon of gods does exist, but which? How to winnow out all the thousands of false gods? Being born into the faith of one's family is not evidence that their faith is the one true faith out of all available. Statistically, it's unlikely to be so.

How to refute the following theistic argument that says "You cannot prove that God does not exist."

Well, technically that's true but it's meaningless since you can't really prove anything doesn't exist (just try doing it with unicorns or elves), you can only prove what does exist.

In any case most atheists I know, me included, aren't saying "god doesn't exist", we're saying theist claims for the existence of a god, or even the supernatural in general, aren't convincing.

Given solid evidence that some kind of god exists, or even just a really compelling reason to accept without evidence the idea that one exists, we'll change our minds about it. I'd be willing to bet that worshipping the god would still be very unlikely for most of us, but we would change our minds about it existing.

Logged

Sandy

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet." Sarah Louise Delany